By Isa Bartelt ’26
On Monday, February 9th, the Conestoga Valley School Board aimed to propose an addition to district policy 123. This addition would include the designation of sports participation by original birth certificate and biological makeup.
This is not the first time that our school board has brought up this issue. In early 2023, a similar policy was brought up. The policy was not implemented due to the school’s solicitor not being sure about any legal ramifications that could follow.
The policy that was introduced this year was proposed by Phillip Benigno, who was just elected to the board in November of 2025. During the meeting, Benigno stated that the reason for the change is due to the PIAA policy change following an executive order from President Trump last year.
The Trump executive order stated that transgender athletes are barred from competing in women’s and girls’ sports.
Applicable parts of the PIAA policy were read at the meeting. At the time of the change, the PIAA board of directors added that “schools should consult with their solicitors for compliance.”
This is exactly what our school district has done. After the Monday night meeting, the board sent the policy to the school’s solicitor for review. In 2023, when the previous policy was reviewed, the solicitor made the recommendation that the school remain neutral and do not make a policy restricting transgender students from sports, despite many other school districts in the area having made policies.
The policy that the CV school board is recommending has two possible ways that it could pass: with or without accommodation.
The only difference between the two policies is that one provides accommodation for sports in which there is no sport provided for a person’s sex, but there is provided for the opposite, so long as they are a boy, they have not gone through puberty.
The board spent some time discussing the issue during the February 9th meeting. Board member Diane Martin said, “We need to be conscious of the time we have already spent on the issue and how much time the board may spend on it now and in the future.”
Superintendent Dr. Daniel Hartman made sure that the board was aware that, despite Supreme Court cases on this issue, the case outcomes may not yield the results the board is hoping for.
Before the issue was discussed at the meeting, two community members made comments. The first speaker emphasized that the school board must follow the law and the PIAA ruling, deferring any action to the school; she also reminded the board that they must follow Title IX regulations.
The second speaker, identified as Angie Shelton (a mom and community member in the district), emphasized that we have had no problems with the “issue” that the board is bringing up. She stated: “Do not insinuate that my girls and other female students would not be able to compete against trans girls.” Because the board had concerns about transgender students taking away scholarships, Shelton stated that there are fewer than 100 trans athletes in the NCAA.
“Rejection, surveillance, and public debate cause harm to queer students,” commented Shelton. She closed by calling the school to action, saying that these students don’t need to be restricted; they need the utmost support and care under the school’s supervision.
Despite the public disapproval, the policy will move forward in the consideration process. As stated by Mark Gensel, the board president, “The policy will move to the solicitor for approval. This will give more time for public comments and Supreme Court decisions.”
References:
PIAA Policy Revision Open Letter
Relevant Supreme Court Cases and Executive Orders